Sorry but I have to agree with Argent on this one. I use a sandbox all of the time for testing code and programs.
The whole point of and inherent safety in a sandbox is that everything is contained within. If any code is allowed to interact with anything outside of the sandbox then it is NOT a sandbox. Jesse Barnett On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Argent Stonecutter <secret.arg...@gmail.com > wrote: > On 2010-03-17, at 16:55, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > > Somewhere along the line Argent, you trusted to install the SL > > binary and its "badly behaved code can compromise you." > > The SL binary does not contain a mechanism to automatically download > and execute untrusted code from in-world content. > > > Don't complain to me and others that want to improve user security. > > It seems like you want to parade about *spooky* ideas as if we want > > to make it worse. > > Adding the ability to download and execute untrusted code from in- > world content is a significant decrease in security. > > > No we don't want to make it worse. Again, re-read the threads from a > > half-year to a year ago about methods to secure and trust these > > scripts, like how to "sign-off" on them, and how to take advantage > > of security models. > > > I have been dealing with such security models professionally since the > '90s. They are inherently hazardous. They have been used as the basis > of far too many compromises to consider trusting them. > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
